Loop fixtures.

[Oxford]

 

6 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

as loop games.

 

1 hour ago, Griff said:

I don't think we should have loop fixtures at all.

Problem solved.

 

2 hours ago, Oxford said:

Oh, come on Harry, who cares, get rid and move on!

 

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

how is it worked out who play's who?

An independent committee

[Scotchy1]

12 minutes ago, Griff said:

I think we should keep Magic.

No marks for arithmetic, I'm afraid.

I know you are committed to the silly idea of 1 league and uneven fixtures you already told us

[Scotchy1]

That the game should either run with 14 clubs, or fewer games, just so we can have 1 league table is such an oddly naive proposition. 

[Eddie]

24 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

It absolutely might. But the move to 14 should be done on its own merits. Not so we can be a slave to the idea of one league table. 

The move to 8 might do the same. A concentration of talent might create more viewers and more attendees. But again that should be done on its own merits.

But 14 doesn't solve the problem, its another sticking plaster solution. Surely the plan is growth and as such we would go to 14 with the intention to get to 16. And the problem rears its head again. 

8 teams would not increase tv viewers or paying spectators, it would be ghastly. 

[Snowys Backside]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

14 teams, home, away, magic = 27 games. Far too radical for SL though. 

To have fair relegation in place, this is the only fair way. League positions mean nothing the season before when your loops could mean theoretically that you could play the top 5 teams that season  in question. Even the magic weekend skews the system.

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Snowys Backside said:

To have fair relegation in place, this is the only fair way. League positions mean nothing the season before when your loops could mean theoretically that you could play the top 5 teams that season  in question. Even the magic weekend skews the system.

If we ever ended up with a system where the teams finishing in say 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th in one year ended up as the top five the following year, we’d be a far healthier sport. 

[Snowys Backside]

Salford went from zero to almost hero very quickly.

All it takes is a few quality signings. Leigh pasted Wigan Saints and Warrington in 2017 but still went down the drainpipe, and London caused mayhem.

It is still not right  anyway. Imagine going down on points difference because they want you to play a top 2 side at magic whilst the surviving side play a bottom 4 side for a third time.

Home and away.  Once !

[super major]

6 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Also, based on the 2020 league finishes, Magic Weekend will look like;

Wigan (1st) v Warrington (3rd), Saints (2nd) v Catalans (4th), Leeds (5th) v Huddersfield (7th), Hull FC (6th) v Castleford Tigers (8th), Salford (9th) v Hull KR (11th), Wakefield (10th) v Leigh (12th*). 

Don't the play off's have an effect on the finishing positions?

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, super major said:

Don't the play off's have an effect on the finishing positions?

I don’t think so, based on the last couple of years fixtures. 

Saints played Cas in 2019 at Anfield which was 1st v 3rd in 2018 and were due to play Salford at Newcastle this year, which was 1st v 3rd in 2019.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Scotchy1 said:

Largely it is a case of aesthetics and presentation but it also has more integrity from a sporting point of view.

It does if the top teams in the conferences are also the best teams in the entire league.

How would you guarantee that ?

Of course - you can't.

[Griff]

51 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I know you are committed to the silly idea of 1 league and uneven fixtures you already told us

There's always a gullible one.

[Tommygilf]

I really do not think you can square loop fixtures (decided before the season begins) with relegation. Playoffs and a grand final work to mitigate it, but with relegation it adds a semblence of unfairness I don't like.

MAYBE, if at the halfway stage of a normal league (11 rounds in), the loop fixture draw was made then maybe I could get on board. At least then it would have some sort of fair reflection on the league competition being played that season and is something along the lines of what the Scottish Premiership does.

I agree the logical move does seem to be 14 teams and no loop fixtures, though clearly that has financial implications I think would have to be resolved creatively - something the game lacks.

[Scotchy1]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

8 teams would not increase tv viewers or paying spectators, it would be ghastly. 

That may be your opinion but I'm no more convinced about 14 than I am 8. 

We have had 14 teams. It didn't work. 

[Scotchy1]

20 minutes ago, Griff said:

It does if the top teams in the conferences are also the best teams in the entire league.

How would you guarantee that ?

Of course - you can't.

They would quite obviously be the best teams playing that fixture list. 

[Griff]

7 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

They would quite obviously be the best teams playing that fixture list. 

So if one conference is far better than the other, you're happy with that.

[Scotchy1]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I really do not think you can square loop fixtures (decided before the season begins) with relegation. Playoffs and a grand final work to mitigate it, but with relegation it adds a semblence of unfairness I don't like.

MAYBE, if at the halfway stage of a normal league (11 rounds in), the loop fixture draw was made then maybe I could get on board. At least then it would have some sort of fair reflection on the league competition being played that season and is something along the lines of what the Scottish Premiership does.

I agree the logical move does seem to be 14 teams and no loop fixtures, though clearly that has financial implications I think would have to be resolved creatively - something the game lacks.

The problem of the league and the fixture list is a far easier problem to solve than changing the number of clubs in the league  

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Scotchy1 said:

The problem of the league and the fixture list is a far easier problem to solve than changing the number of clubs in the league  

Of course.

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

The problem of the league and the fixture list is a far easier problem to solve than changing the number of clubs in the league  

Solve ?

You mean it's easier to fudge.

[Scotchy1]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

So if one conference is far better than the other, you're happy with that.

Think it through buddy.

[Eddie]

I think we can all agree conferences are a terrible idea. Even if the NFL, MLB etc were starting again they wouldn’t design their comps the way they have. 

[Hela Wigmen]

26 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I think we can all agree conferences are a terrible idea. Even if the NFL, MLB etc were starting again they wouldn’t design their comps the way they have. 

They probably would because of the sheer size of America but that’s another discussion. Conferences in Rugby League just wouldn’t work because they wouldn’t of use to the sport. 

[Scotchy1]

36 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I think we can all agree conferences are a terrible idea. Even if the NFL, MLB etc were starting again they wouldn’t design their comps the way they have. 

They absolutely would. See MLS. 

[Scotchy1]

9 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

They probably would because of the sheer size of America but that’s another discussion. Conferences in Rugby League just wouldn’t work because they wouldn’t of use to the sport. 

The geographical size of America isnt why they have conferences. Nor the major reason they keep them. The clippers, lakers, kings, rams et al play against the knicks, nets, islanders, rangers, giants et al now despite it being nigh on 3000miles from LA to NYC. 

The reason they have conferences is that the number of sides they have doesnt suit a straight home/away fixture list and when you dont have a straight home/away fixture list a single table doesnt make any sense. 

[Big Picture]

56 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I think we can all agree conferences are a terrible idea. Even if the NFL, MLB etc were starting again they wouldn’t design their comps the way they have. 

Yes they would, because that alignment works well for leagues which cover multiple time zones (like all the North American major pro leagues) by minimizing the travel time and expense for all the teams via a geographically-based unbalanced schedule.  It's also a great solution where a league gets too big for all the teams to play each other the same number of times in a season and just about the only solution where a league gets too big for all the teams to play each other unless that's spread over a number of seasons.  The NFL's alignment illustrates the last point superbly.

The NFL has 32 teams divided between two conferences of 16 teams each which are subdivided into four divisions of four teams each, and a 16-game schedule played over 17 weeks.  The teams play the other three teams in their own division twice, half of the other 12 in their own conference once and the four teams in one of the divisions of the other conference once during each season.  The following season they play the other six teams in the other divisions of their own conference instead of the six they played previously; those rotate ever other season.  They rotate through the divisions of the other conference on a four-year cycle which dovetails perfectly with the two-year cycle of playing all of their in-conference opponents, so they play all the other teams in the league over that four-year cycle.  Because of the division into conferences and divisions within the conferences, everyone can see how that cycle works and understand it easily.

That's why further NFL expansion is unlikely: they would need a whole new scheduling algorithm for the higher number of teams in place of one which fits their current number perfectly.

[Scotchy1]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

Yes they would, because that alignment works well for leagues which cover multiple time zones like all the North American major pro leagues by minimizing the travel time and expense for all the teams via a geographically-based unbalanced schedule.  It's also a great solution where a league gets too big for all the teams to play each other the same number of times in a season and just about the only solution where a league gets too big for all the teams to play each other unless that's spread over a number of seasons.  The NFL's alignment illustrates the last point superbly.

The NFL has 32 teams divided between two conferences of 16 teams each which are subdivided into four divisions of four teams each, and a 16-game schedule played over 17 weeks.  The teams play the other three teams in their own division twice, half of the other 12 in their own conference once and the four teams in one of the divisions of the other conference once during each season.  The following season they play the other six teams in the other divisions of their own conference instead of the six they played previously; those rotate ever other season.  They rotate through the divisions of the other conference on a four-year cycle, so they play all the other teams in the league over that four-year cycle.  Because of the division into conferences and divisions within the conferences, everyone can see how that cycle works and understand it easily.

That's why further NFL expansion is unlikely: they would need a whole new scheduling algorithm for the higher number of teams in place of one which fits their current number perfectly.

Thats not really a particularly difficult thing for them to work out. They did it 18 years ago when they expanded to 32.